News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
Tesla plans to adjust heavily scrutinized car part with simple engineering
“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.
Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.
In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.
Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.
Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:
- Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
- He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.
Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:
- Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Franz von Holzhausen (from Tesla’s Robovan) on Tesla’s upcoming redesigned door handles: pic.twitter.com/lnaKve1SlJ
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 17, 2025
The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.
It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.
News
Elon Musk calls out viral claim of 10,000 Tesla Optimus deal: “Fake”
For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3.
Elon Musk has provided some clarification to recent reports suggesting that PharmAGRI, a US pharmaceutical and agricultural infrastructure company, is looking to deploy 10,000 Optimus robots for its operations.
Musk posted his clarification on social media platform X.
Alleged Optimus purchase
Recently, reports emerged stating that PharmAGRI Capital Partners will be tapping into Tesla’s humanoid robots for its operations. The firm claimed that it had executed a Letter of Intent with Tesla to deploy up to 10,000 Optimus Gen 3+ humanoid robots across its SuperPharm and CEA facilities. This should allow the company to automate its labor and ensure diversion control.
A comment from Lynn Stockwell, Chairwoman & CEO, suggested that the company really was partnering with Tesla. “With Tesla robotics powering our facilities and DEA-licensed infrastructure in place, we can scale with precision, meet federal sourcing mandates, and deliver therapies that are compliant, secure, and American-made,” she said.
Elon Musk clariies
News of PharmAGRI’s Optimus claims quickly spread on social media, though some Tesla watchers argued that it seemed unlikely that the EV maker will commit two legions of Optimus robots to a rather unknown company this early. Some pointed out that Tesla typically commits to high-profile customers to test its early products, such as PepsiCo with the Tesla Semi.
Photos from PharmAGRI’s website depicting Tesla Optimus bots, as well as the rather basic look of the website itself, also brought more reservations to the company’s claims. Ultimately, Elon Musk weighed in on the matter, responding to a post about PharmAGRI’s Optimus-filled webpage. Musk was quick and direct, simply stating, “Fake.”
Elon Musk’s comments were quite unsurprising considering that Optimus is still very much in active development, and thus, it is quite unlikely that the company is already taking orders or even Letters of Intent from potential customers at this time. For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3, which Musk has noted will be “sublime.”
Elon Musk
Elon Musk: Self-sustaining city on Mars is plausible in 25-30 years
Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization.”
Elon Musk has stated that a self-sustaining human settlement on Mars could be established in 25-30 years, provided launch capacity increases dramatically in the coming decades.
Speaking at the All-In Summit, the SpaceX CEO said building a self-sufficient colony depends on exponential growth in “tonnage to Mars” with each launch window, highlighting Starship’s role as the company’s pathway to interplanetary initiatives.
Mars settlement goals
Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization,” from food production to microchip manufacturing. Starship Version 3 is expected to support the first uncrewed Mars test flights, while future iterations could reach 466 feet in height and deliver larger payloads critical for settlement. Ultimately, Musk stated that an aggressive timeline for a city on Mars could be as short as 30 years, as noted in a Space.com report.
“I think it can be done in 30 years, provided there’s an exponential increase in the tonnage to Mars with each successive Mars transfer window, which is every two years. Every two years, the planets align and you can transfer to Mars.
“I think in roughly 15, but maybe as few as 10, but 10-15-ish Mars transfer windows. If you’re seeing exponential increases in the tonnage to Mars with each Mars transfer window, then it should be possible to make Mars self-sustaining in about call it roughly 25 years,” Musk said.
Starship’s role
Starship has flown in a fully stacked configuration ten times, most recently in August when it completed its first payload deployment in orbit. The next flight will close out the Version 2 program before transitioning to Starship Version 3, featuring Raptor 3 engines and a redesigned structure capable of lifting over 100 tons to orbit.
While SpaceX has demonstrated Super Heavy booster reuse, Ship reusability remains in development. Musk noted that the heat shield is still the biggest technical hurdle, as no orbital vehicle has yet achieved rapid, full reuse.
“For full reusability of the Ship, there’s still a lot of work that remains on the heat shield. No one’s ever made a fully reusable orbital heat shield. The shuttle heat shield had to go through nine months of repair after every flight,” he said.
Tesla plans to adjust heavily scrutinized car part with simple engineering
Elon Musk calls out viral claim of 10,000 Tesla Optimus deal: “Fake”
Elon Musk: Self-sustaining city on Mars is plausible in 25-30 years
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla’s next-gen Optimus prototype with Grok revealed
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News2 weeks agoTesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
-
News2 weeks agoTesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips